MANTZ VS. BUCHANAN. 203

[On the 22d May, 1830, the late Honorable John Buchanan,
of Washington county, being indebted to Casper Mantz, in the
sum of ten thousand dollars, in order to secure its payment,
with interest, in two years, executed to him a mortgage of the
farm on which he then resided; and his wife united in the ac-
knowledgment of the deed, for the purpose of relinquishing her
dower. Mantz died in the year 1839, and on the 17th Janu-
ary, 1844, a bill was filed in this court by his administrators, c.
t. a., for a sale of the mortgaged premises. A decree was ac-
cordingly passed on the 27th February, 1844; and the said
Buchanan died in October of the same year, intestate, leaving
said mortgage debt still unpaid. In January, 1846, no sale hav-
ing yet been made under the decree, a bill was filed by George M.
Eichelberger, who held as trustee certain judgments against the
mortgagor, on behalf of himself and of the other creditors of the
mortgagor, against his heirs at law, and the complainants in
the first bill; reciting the previous proceedings alleging the
sufficiency of the personal estate, and the continuance of the
mortgage debt, with interest; and praying that the trustee ap-
pointed by the former decree, might proceed to make sale of
the mortgaged premises, for the benefit of the creditors of the
deceased mortgagor. A decree was passed as prayed, and the
property was sold on the 29th of December, 1846. In the
month of September of the following year, an order was passed
on the petition of Maria S. Buchanan, widow of the deceased
mortgagor, allowing her a proportion of the whole of the net
proceeds of sale; the residue thereof, after payment of the mort-
gage debt, appearing amply sufficient for that purpose. But on
a petition of Eichelberger in the behalf of creditors, stating that
dower in said lands had already been assigned to her by the
Washington County Court, sitting as a court of equity, that
order was rescinded, and a day fixed for hearing the matters of
the two petitions.

The first question presented to the court, for decision, was,
whether Mrs. Buchanan. was precluded from claiming any share
of proceeds of the sale by the proceedings in Washington Coun-
ty Court.